• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Austria will tighten its firearms law now, after the school shooting this week with 11 dead and 30+ injured. - Do you think this is a good idea ?

?


  • Total voters
    21
Hi Soy,

Yes, listening to someone who has no clue what he is talking about is a waste of time. I think I should listen to you more. Why would I want to listen to people who study in University for 6+ years. I better listen to someone who has been reading the Tom & Jerry Chronicle, such as yourself.

Joey
And what do they study for 6 + years? The magical ability to read peoples minds perhaps. Psychology is about percentages and cumulative knowledge of a person that is obtained over months of sessions with that person and even then they only scratch the surface. It is not just giving someone a sheet of paper with a few questions and then pretending they know for certain whether someone can own a gun or not. There are no quick and easy answers to who should own a gun. Anyone who thinks that because someone studied psychology for 6 + years gives them any more of an advantage over anyone else is just displaying the fact that they are better off reading tom and jerry comics.
 
And what do they study for 6 + years? The magical ability to read peoples minds perhaps. Psychology is about percentages and cumulative knowledge of a person that is obtained over months of sessions with that person and even then they only scratch the surface. It is not just giving someone a sheet of paper with a few questions and then pretending they know for certain whether someone can own a gun or not. There are no quick and easy answers to who should own a gun. Anyone who thinks that because someone studied psychology for 6 + years gives them any more of an advantage over anyone else is just displaying the fact that they are better off reading tom and jerry comics.

Hi Soy,

Sorry mate, but you keep displaying that you have zero understanding of psychology. Your very premise that they are unable to determine whether you are going to commit a crime with a firearm is incorrect. The only correct statement you make is that they can not predict this with certainty. But that does not make it bad science. Just because you think the science of the brain is a lot of bullocks, does of course not mean that the science of the brain actually is a lot of bullocks.

I am not a psychologist. But I like the science. I have read quite a lot about it. And it serves me well. To the point where people ask me for advise on other people's behaviour at work because they valued my opinion. Why? Was I always right? Hell no. But I was right more often than I was wrong. And that's where the balance flips. More right than wrong. That's what they do. So denying the use of this additional advise would be naïve, stupid, unprofessional, and unacceptable. Will they make mistakes? Yeah, sure. Just like any other person in any other job. But they do add additional knowledge that you want to take into consideration when reviewing the application. You want to base your decision on a complete picture with all available information.

But just out of curiosity; Are you worried they would deny you a gun? And that leads me to ask myself the same question actually. Never thought about it before. I think I would not be denied a gun, but I can tell you now that they should deny me a gun. And the reason is very simple. I like to use the right tool for the right job. I use a hammer to hit a nail and I would use a gun to kill someone. So if one day I were to ask for a license for a gun, that means, by default, that I am going to use it to kill someone. Let's just hope this ridiculous scenario never plays up though.


Joey
 
Hi Soy,

Yes, listening to someone who has no clue what he is talking about is a waste of time. I think I should listen to you more. Why would I want to listen to people who study in University for 6+ years. I better listen to someone who has been reading the Tom & Jerry Chronicle, such as yourself.

Joey
Theologians, for example, may study in a university for six years. Does that mean we must take their strange beliefs seriously?
 
Theologians, for example, may study in a university for six years. Does that mean we must take their strange beliefs seriously?

Hi Sweden,

No you should not take their strange beliefs seriously. I don't. But you should take serious their vast knowledge they acquired about religion in general. Because that is what they studied. If I want to know something about my health I go to a doctor, because that is what they study. Likewise, if I want to know something about religion, I go to someone who studied theology.

Sorry, but what is it with you guys? Just because it is not an exact science, it can't be taken seriously?


Joey
 
Hi Soy,

Sorry mate, but you keep displaying that you have zero understanding of psychology. Your very premise that they are unable to determine whether you are going to commit a crime with a firearm is incorrect. The only correct statement you make is that they can not predict this with certainty. But that does not make it bad science. Just because you think the science of the brain is a lot of bullocks, does of course not mean that the science of the brain actually is a lot of bullocks.
Exactly my point. they can not predict this with certainty. And I never said the science was bollocks. I said that the science is based on statistical averages rather than hard certain facts. Psychology is only called a science because it uses the same method of scientific research. ie; hypothesise, test hypothesis. if the test gives positive result then you have a theory. If not start again.

I am not a psychologist. But I like the science. I have read quite a lot about it. And it serves me well. To the point where people ask me for advise on other people's behaviour at work because they valued my opinion. Why? Was I always right? Hell no. But I was right more often than I was wrong. And that's where the balance flips. More right than wrong. That's what they do. So denying the use of this additional advise would be naïve, stupid, unprofessional, and unacceptable. Will they make mistakes? Yeah, sure. Just like any other person in any other job. But they do add additional knowledge that you want to take into consideration when reviewing the application. You want to base your decision on a complete picture with all available information.
Which again is exactly my point. there is no certainty in the idea that psychologists or anyone can predict with any certainty that some one person should or should not have a gun. The reliance on a psych evaluation that is nothing more than a few questions on a bit of paper is only as good as the personal opinion of the person evaluating the test.

But just out of curiosity; Are you worried they would deny you a gun? And that leads me to ask myself the same question actually. Never thought about it before. I think I would not be denied a gun, but I can tell you now that they should deny me a gun. And the reason is very simple. I like to use the right tool for the right job. I use a hammer to hit a nail and I would use a gun to kill someone. So if one day I were to ask for a license for a gun, that means, by default, that I am going to use it to kill someone. Let's just hope this ridiculous scenario never plays up though.


Joey
How ****ing ridiculous is that. Do you not know that guns can and are used by millions of people all over america and other countries for legal and harmless ( to humans ) recreations such as sport, hunting or even just as a collectors item.
That you can not think of any other use for a gun other than to kill someone displays a very poor understanding of guns.
 
changing a gun law doesn't do anything to stop the core problem - violent/crazy people


typical liberal left to totally ignore the problem :(
 
Significant measures to TIGHTEN Austria's firearm law will already be introduced tomorrow at the government's cabinet council meeting.

These include a higher age limit to buy firearms (currently 18 for rifles and 21 for handguns). It will be seen if they raise the rifle age to 21 too, or if they will raise both to an even higher minimum age.

Other measures include much stricter "psychological assessment tests" to get a firearm license, a longer waiting period to purchase firearms after you get the license to lower the number of "affectionate killings", data from the Austrian military draft psycho assessment of draftees being sent to authorities who issue firearm licenses, more psychological treatment of students and more staff for this in schools.

There was also talk about American-style entry systems to schools, like metal detectors and security guards, but this was not taken into account, because school should be a free place and students shouldn't be reminded of the possibility of rampages every day.

The measures presented tomorrow will be worked out in detail over the next month, passed by parliament and then take into effect before the start of the new school year in September.
 
Personally 'I don't give a damn Charlotte'...it's their country so they can do what they seem best for them.
 
Where in your link does it talk about options?

Considering that apparently austria has a strong hunting culture and thus the reason for why there is plentiful guns. Can you explain why hand guns are also so popular as it is normal to go hunting with rifles rather than a glock. Yet I have read that austrian often carry hand guns when hunting as well as rifles.

And then there is this laughable notion that a psychologist can somehow predict whether a person will be a criminal or a terrorist. If it were that easy then we would not have any crime at all because psychologists could tell us who is going to commit terrible acts with guns. Psychology is a soft science. They work on percentages not facts.

And this is the big question.
https://www.bta.bg/en/news/world/90...in-austria-current-rules-and-growing-concerns

The question is why are austrians so scared?
Rather than psychoanalyze peoples motive for a having a gun which the answer will always be influenced by the subjective opinion of the psychologist doing the analyse. Why are you not concentrating on what is making the people so fearful that they feel the need to buy a gun.


.
I believe many hunters carry a handgun in order to administer a coup de grace to a wounded animal, without splattering it all over the place, as a close up shot with the hunting rifle might do.
 
The more people with guns the quicker a shooter dies.

Simple as that.
 
I believe many hunters carry a handgun in order to administer a coup de grace to a wounded animal, without splattering it all over the place, as a close up shot with the hunting rifle might do.
My late father in law (and his forebears) my brothers in law and their sons all hunt. None of them have ever carried a handgun. Nor have any other Swedish hunters as far as I am aware.
 
Where their previous gun laws to blame for this Criminals Breaking the Laws?
Or will it be like in the US where liberal States with the STRICTEST Gun Laws have the highest Gun death rates ?....
 

Attachments

  • GunCnrtl.webp
    GunCnrtl.webp
    58.5 KB · Views: 0
Yes, this is a good idea ... but I only support modest changes, not a full ban.

I wouldn't ban guns entirely, but I would go a lot farther than I think most Americans would be comfortable with. I'd more-or-less ban having them in cities, unless the person has a special permit, which would only be issued if they had a specific danger such as a stalker. If someone wants to have a gun for sporting or hunting, that's totally fine, just store the gun outside of the city.

That kind of restriction would never be allowed in the US, but some European and Asian countries might be on board with that.
 
we have many restrictions on guns in the USA

"No, I support US-style gun laws without many restrictions like in Austria."

this is so misleading .... its ignorant, inaccurate, fake/false and misinformation
 
I would support modest changes.
 
Austria has sacrificed its borders....their indigenous population will soon be subject to a majority Muslim rule. Do whatever the **** you want. Give away your gun rights. Bring in more Muslims. You are ****ed in under 2 generations anyway.
 
Austria will raise the minimum age to buy firearms from 21 to 25, among other significant restrictions for firearms permits and ownership, that were unveiled today.


Hi Tender Branson,

Thanks for that mate.


Just for the people from the US. Please take note of this. 1 Week after a mass shooting the government agrees to tighten gun control.

You see? It can be done!


Joey
 
we have many restrictions on guns in the USA

"No, I support US-style gun laws without many restrictions like in Austria."

this is so misleading .... its ignorant, inaccurate, fake/false and misinformation

You have very few restrictions when compared to Austria gun laws (or other European countries).

It's therefore not false or misinformation. You can buy firearms at 18 in the US, not 21 like here (and soon 25). You don't need to pass a psychological test/evaluation like here and police don't come to your house every 5 years to check if guns are stored away and locked away safely.
 
Austria has sacrificed its borders....their indigenous population will soon be subject to a majority Muslim rule. Do whatever the **** you want. Give away your gun rights. Bring in more Muslims. You are ****ed in under 2 generations anyway.

Yes, it's a bad development for sure and I have strongly opposed and criticized this mass invasion of Muslims to Europe over the past 35 years.

But what do gun rights have to do with that ?

Do you think we should execute all incoming Muslims with firearms in the future if they keep coming and that restricted gun laws are therefore bad in case we need the firearms later ?
 
Yes, it's a bad development for sure and I have strongly opposed and criticized this mass invasion of Muslims to Europe over the past 35 years.

But what do gun rights have to do with that ?

Do you think we should execute all incoming Muslims with firearms in the future if they keep coming and that restricted gun laws are therefore bad in case we need the firearms later ?
I think if you were smart you would make sure you have them...and plenty of ammunition...and then demand your politicians set about deporting Muslims back to Muslim countries.

But hey...you do you. Personally...whatever happens...you deserve what you get.
 
Hi Tender Branson,

Thanks for that mate.


Just for the people from the US. Please take note of this. 1 Week after a mass shooting the government agrees to tighten gun control.

You see? It can be done!


Joey

We need to see if these restrictions will lead to anything positive or not ... there are still many illegal weapons in circulation.

Austria just has a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100.000 people, among the lowest.

So, this school killing was a bad outlier, not the norm, but good that modest changes were made now to the gun laws, especially ending dangerous loopholes.
 
I think if you were smart you would make sure you have them...and plenty of ammunition...and then demand your politicians set about deporting Muslims back to Muslim countries.

But hey...you do you. Personally...whatever happens...you deserve what you get.

It's not like the new changes to the gun law will ban firearm possession.

You can still get firearms, if you are over 25 (soon, now 21) and pass a stricter psychological test and after you get the license, you need to wait 1 month in a cool-off-phase to purchase them.

But a ban ? No.

PS: I am totally with you on the deportation of Muslims to their countries. We don't need them here in Europe. What we need are legal immigrants from Vietnam, the Philippines, South America of Christian Africa. Muslims maybe in 500 years, when their religion/culture is similar to ours, not a jihadi military doctrine to overthrow the West or European culture.
 
Last edited:
I could not vote because "I don't live in Austria so I don't care" was not a choice.
 
It's not like the new changes to the gun law will ban firearm possession.

You can still get firearms, if you are over 25 (soon, now 21) and pass a stricter psychological test and after you get the license, you need to wait 1 month in a cool-off-phase to purchase them.

But a ban ? No.

PS: I am totally with you on the deportation of Muslims to their countries. We don't need them here in Europe. What we need are immigrants from Vietnam, the Philippines, South America of Christian Africa. Muslims maybe in 500 years, when their religion/culture is similar to ours, not a jihadi military doctrine.
I'm just not a real fan of the whole camels nose in the tent approach to gun control> Using specific incidents is not an indicator of a policy problem but more likely an indicator of an execution problem. We have the same problem here. An incident occurs and instead of learning why or even what, people start screaming about new gun bans...often the most ridiculous unrelated things imaginable. Because any excuse to pass a new law guarantees there will be more.
 
Back
Top Bottom